The Appellate Tribunal allowed my benami appeal years ago. After the Ganpati Dealcom recall it has reopened the matter on the Department's review. Can it do that?
On this judgment, yes, where the Tribunal's own earlier order reserved that liberty. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed writ petitions against the Appellate Tribunal's order granting review and restoring the appeals. It held that s.40 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act leaves the Tribunal free to regulate its own procedure and expressly includes the power of review, and that the petitioners had acquiesced in an earlier order which itself gave the Department liberty to apply for review if the Supreme Court reviewed Ganpati Dealcom.
Decided by the High Court (Ashwani Kumar Mishra ACJ and Rohit Kapoor J) on 2026-08-26, reported as CWP-17064-2026 (O&M) with CWP-17123-2026, CWP-17125-2026, CWP-20413-2026, CWP-13563-2026 and CWP-13567-2026. It bears on section Benami s.40, section Benami s.40(2), section Benami s.26(3), section Benami s.24(4), section Order XLVII r.1 CPC of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
It is the High Court answer on whether a benami appeal won on the strength of the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom judgment can be revived after the recall. A practitioner needs it alongside the Supreme Court's order in Union of India v Virendra Amrutbhai Patel, which refused to act on the same liberty clause, because the two lead to opposite practical results.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
By order dated 24 May 2023 the Appellate Tribunal disposed of appeals against orders of the Adjudicating Authority under ss.26(3) and 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. The petitioners had argued that the Benami Prohibition Unit had applied provisions introduced by the 2016 Amendment to transactions predating it, contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal set the proceedings aside, but recorded that it had been informed that the Ganpati Dealcom judgment had not attained finality and that a review application was pending before the Supreme Court, and it reserved to the respondent liberty to take an appropriate remedy including a review petition before the Tribunal if the Supreme Court reviewed its judgment. On 18 October 2024 the Supreme Court allowed the review and recalled the Ganpati Dealcom judgment, granting liberty to aggrieved parties to seek review where other proceedings had been disposed of by relying on it. The Department then applied to the Tribunal for review with an application for condonation of delay, and by order dated 22 September 2025 the Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the review on merits. The petitioners challenged that order, relying on s.114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, on Government of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd and on A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak, and arguing that a subsequent judicial decision cannot revive jurisdiction and that consent cannot confer it.
The writ petitions were dismissed (para 18), pending applications were disposed of (para 19), and a copy of the order was directed to be placed on the files of the connected cases (para 20). The Appellate Tribunal was held to have acted within jurisdiction in entertaining the review and restoring the appeals.
Section 40 of the 1988 Act gives the Appellate Tribunal a procedure distinct from the Code of Civil Procedure; the Tribunal is not bound by the Code but is guided by the principles of natural justice, and s.40(2) expressly includes reviewing its decisions among the powers it has as a civil court. The procedure laid down by the Code therefore does not strictly limit the ambit and scope of the Tribunal's appellate powers (paras 11 and 12). On the facts, when the Tribunal passed its order of 24 May 2023 it had been told that Ganpati Dealcom had not attained finality and that a review was pending, and its order recorded that if the Supreme Court reviewed its judgment the respondent would be at liberty to take an appropriate remedy including a review petition before the Tribunal; the petitioners had acquiesced in that order, which itself conferred a right on the parties to apply for review (paras 13 and 14). The Court accepted as settled both that a subsequent judgment would not justify allowing a review and that consent of parties does not confer jurisdiction, but held that those principles had no application where the Tribunal itself granted the liberty in its earlier order (para 15). It also noted that the Supreme Court, while allowing the review, had left it open to aggrieved parties to seek review (para 16). K.L. Rathi Steels and A.R. Antulay, pressed by the petitioners, were found inapplicable for those reasons.
The Tribunal is left free to regulate its own procedure.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppOn this judgment, yes, where the Tribunal's own earlier order reserved that liberty. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed writ petitions against the Appellate Tribunal's order granting review and restoring the appeals. It held that s.40 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act leaves the Tribunal free to regulate its own procedure and expressly includes the power of review, and that the petitioners had acquiesced in an earlier order which itself gave the Department liberty to apply for review if the Supreme Court reviewed Ganpati Dealcom. This was decided by the High Court (Ashwani Kumar Mishra ACJ and Rohit Kapoor J) and bears on section Benami s.40, section Benami s.40(2), section Benami s.26(3), section Benami s.24(4), section Order XLVII r.1 CPC of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as CWP-17064-2026 (O&M) with CWP-17123-2026, CWP-17125-2026, CWP-20413-2026, CWP-13563-2026 and CWP-13567-2026. It is the High Court answer on whether a benami appeal won on the strength of the 2022 Ganpati Dealcom judgment can be revived after the recall. A practitioner needs it alongside the Supreme Court's order in Union of India v Virendra Amrutbhai Patel, which refused to act on the same liberty clause, because the two lead to opposite practical results. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Pull the Tribunal's original order and read its closing paragraph: this judgment turns on whether it reserved liberty to the Department to seek review if Ganpati Dealcom were reviewed.
By order dated 24 May 2023 the Appellate Tribunal disposed of appeals against orders of the Adjudicating Authority under ss.26(3) and 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. The petitioners had argued that the Benami Prohibition Unit had applied provisions introduced by the 2016 Amendment to transactions predating it, contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal set the proceedings aside, but recorded that it had been informed that the Ganpati Dealcom judgment had not attained finality and that a review application was pending before the Supreme Court, and it reserved to the respondent liberty to take an appropriate remedy including a review petition before the Tribunal if the Supreme Court reviewed its judgment. On 18 October 2024 the Supreme Court allowed the review and recalled the Ganpati Dealcom judgment, granting liberty to aggrieved parties to seek review where other proceedings had been disposed of by relying on it. The Department then applied to the Tribunal for review with an application for condonation of delay, and by order dated 22 September 2025 the Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the review on merits. The petitioners challenged that order, relying on s.114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, on Government of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd and on A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak, and arguing that a subsequent judicial decision cannot revive jurisdiction and that consent cannot confer it. The matter was decided on 2026-08-26 by the High Court (Ashwani Kumar Mishra ACJ and Rohit Kapoor J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petitions were dismissed (para 18), pending applications were disposed of (para 19), and a copy of the order was directed to be placed on the files of the connected cases (para 20). The Appellate Tribunal was held to have acted within jurisdiction in entertaining the review and restoring the appeals.
Section 40 of the 1988 Act gives the Appellate Tribunal a procedure distinct from the Code of Civil Procedure; the Tribunal is not bound by the Code but is guided by the principles of natural justice, and s.40(2) expressly includes reviewing its decisions among the powers it has as a civil court. The procedure laid down by the Code therefore does not strictly limit the ambit and scope of the Tribunal's appellate powers (paras 11 and 12). On the facts, when the Tribunal passed its order of 24 May 2023 it had been told that Ganpati Dealcom had not attained finality and that a review was pending, and its order recorded that if the Supreme Court reviewed its judgment the respondent would be at liberty to take an appropriate remedy including a review petition before the Tribunal; the petitioners had acquiesced in that order, which itself conferred a right on the parties to apply for review (paras 13 and 14). The Court accepted as settled both that a subsequent judgment would not justify allowing a review and that consent of parties does not confer jurisdiction, but held that those principles had no application where the Tribunal itself granted the liberty in its earlier order (para 15). It also noted that the Supreme Court, while allowing the review, had left it open to aggrieved parties to seek review (para 16). K.L. Rathi Steels and A.R. Antulay, pressed by the petitioners, were found inapplicable for those reasons. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The Tribunal is left free to regulate its own procedure." The decision followed or applied Government of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd, (2024) 7 SCC 315 — cited by the petitioners and held inapplicable; A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 — cited by the petitioners and held inapplicable.
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-08-26 and is reported as CWP-17064-2026 (O&M) with CWP-17123-2026, CWP-17125-2026, CWP-20413-2026, CWP-13563-2026 and CWP-13567-2026. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section Benami s.40, section Benami s.40(2), section Benami s.26(3), section Benami s.24(4), section Order XLVII r.1 CPC, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The writ petitions were dismissed (para 18), pending applications were disposed of (para 19), and a copy of the order was directed to be placed on the files of the connected cases (para 20). The Appellate Tribunal was held to have acted within jurisdiction in entertaining the review and restoring the appeals. It arises in Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section Benami s.40, section Benami s.40(2), section Benami s.26(3), section Benami s.24(4), section Order XLVII r.1 CPC of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Ashwani Kumar Mishra ACJ and Rohit Kapoor J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If it did, and you did not challenge that reservation at the time, expect acquiescence to be held against you. If it did not, the position is different and Union of India v Virendra Amrutbhai Patel, with the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, is the argument to take. Take limitation on the review application separately; delay was condoned here and that condonation was not separately disturbed. Keep the merits alive — the recall restored Civil Appeal 5783/2022, which is undecided, so the substantive prospectivity question is still open before the Tribunal.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided 26 August 2026. No decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling it was located. It should be read against Union of India v Virendra Amrutbhai Patel, in which a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on 4 November 2025 declined to act on the same liberty clause in the Ganpati Dealcom recall order and applied the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; this judgment does not refer to that order. It should also be read against the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Munnidevi Sitani of 20 May 2026, which records that the Gauhati High Court in Satyajit Saha v Union of India, ITA No. 1/2026, framed questions on 30 January 2026 on whether the power of review can be exercised in these circumstances, having regard to s.114 read with Order XLVII CPC and s.40(2)(f) of the Act. That question is therefore live elsewhere. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The discovery record lists the sections in issue as ss.24(4), 26(3) and 46. Sections 24(4) and 26(3) are the provisions under which the original adjudication orders were made, but the judgment turns on s.40, which governs the Appellate Tribunal's procedure and its power of review; s.46 does not figure in the reasoning. The judgment was read through to the disposition. The date of the Tribunal's original order is 24 May 2023 and of its review order 22 September 2025. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petitions were dismissed (para 18), pending applications were disposed of (para 19), and a copy of the order was directed to be placed on the files of the connected cases (para 20). The Appellate Tribunal was held to have acted within jurisdiction in entertaining the review and restoring the appeals.
TaxSphere, “Manik Seth v Initiating Officer, BPU, Ludhiana”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/manik-seth-v-initiating-officer-benami-tribunal-review-after-recall/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The benami show-cause notice came from an Initiating Officer in a city where neither the property nor my client sits. Does that matter?
The department's SLP against a High Court judgment in my favour was dismissed. Is that judgment now a Supreme Court decision?
My benami matter was decided on the strength of Ganpati Dealcom and became final. The Supreme Court has now recalled that judgment. Can the Department reopen my case by review?
The Initiating Officer has issued a s.24 notice and attached my accounts on the strength of a spreadsheet found in someone else's search. Will the High Court interfere now?
